Panera Bread bans Firearms carrying Citizens

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by tinbucket, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,399
    113

    it is clearly you who doesn't understand the concept of private property Mr. RJD. just because a business has public access, doesn't negate the fact it's private property. and those requirements are made simply because it has public access.

    I also posted several links in past posts that show the definition of trespassing along with the legal and lawful definition of trespassing. you may read them at your pleasure and I think you will see that I completely understand what the legal definitions is. I think it's you who are having the comprehension problem with the definition of what trespassing is. and you are completely incorrect as there doesn't have to be harm or damage done for the act of entering someone else's property for it to be trespassing.

    if someone drives up onto my property and asks if they can cut my grass, even if I have signs posted, then they aren't trespassing until I say they are trespassing. if I also have a sign that says "No Soliciting Allowed" and "No Trespassing" then that person who drove up to ask to cut my grass is pretty much automatically trespassing. what eludes you is, as the property owner, that person gets to decide exactly when another person is trespassing. and if you have business that is open to the public, and it has a "No Guns" sign, and the owner of that business decided he didn't want to ask you to leave because you were carrying a gun and calls the cops, he can have you arrested for trespassing.

    I am part owner of a business with my brother. it doesn't currently have any "No Guns Allowed" signage, but I will put some up in manner that are quite easy to see, and i'll invite you to carry past those signs and see if I can't have you arrested for trespassing, by not asking you to leave, but just calling up the local police. care to take the challenge and prove me wrong?
     
  2. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Case #5,

    Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856)

    From 1856, can't find anything on it.

    From what I did find is is also State related and not , district, Circuit or Supreme. It's a States thing.
     

  3. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
  4. Balota

    Balota ... but I used to play keyboards. Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    9,301
    2,911
    113
    Eric. I am not a lawyer, much less a high court judge. But I am reasonably intelligent. What I read there is that the judge decided that a law against CC is just a police issue limiting a mode of carry that is considered dangerous for the public. While I disagree with that decision, it is what it is. What it is not is that it is not complete. In my opinion, the judge needed to clearly indicate what mode of carry IS considered safe for the public. Decisions like this one can be used to selectively eliminate each mode of carry, one at a time, and have the cumulative effect of infringement.

    In my opinion this is a bad decision because it's incomplete.
     
  5. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,920
    572
    113
    I really haven't seen an issue. Why so contrarian to everything psoted?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2016
  6. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,399
    113
    Mr. Tinbucket you are way too kind!

    but the last paragraph was to prove a point and merely in rhetoric, which seemed to elude you.

    it was shown as example that my rights as property owner and my business, trump your right to carry when I expressly forbid doing so.
     
  7. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    4
    0
    I suggest you don't come to my state then. In Ohio it is not illegal to carry even if there is a sign. It is however, illegal to stay if asked to leave. If you don't leave when asked they will arrest you for trespass but not before you've been asked. Of course texas wouldn't even let you carry a pistol openly so we know what texas thinks of your rights. You stay there and I'll stay here. Have a good day.
     
  8. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Lemmy axe yous guys a question, or three.

    Lets say yous guys is Hunters.

    Lets say, that your State requires a certain type of sign, specific verbiage on sign and specific sign placement in the field to be valid, "Force of law" if you will.

    Like this one, posted and signed in "compliance" every "so many" feet etc.

    [​IMG]

    Walking past that sign would be a Trespass violation without the owner verbally telling you to leave, Yes?

    Now lets say while Hunting, you come across this sign.

    [​IMG]

    Not the proper verbiage for starters, not compliant height, not even spaced properly in the field.

    1) Knowing that the sign is non-compliant, would you walk past it and hunt this land anyway, knowing you were violating the owners wishes, or would you respect the sign "compliant" or not?

    2) If the Owner saw yous guys hunting his non-compliant posted land and called the Game Warden or the Sheriff, do you think you could be charged with trespassing and hunting without permission?

    3) Do you think you should be charged with trespassing for walking past a Non-Compliant sign knowing exactly what it meant, even though it was non-compliant?

    4) Do yous guys that carry or hunt, look for ways to disobay these signs and do as you please, or do you respect a Property Sign regardless if it is compliant?

    5) Do you think there is a difference between walking/hunting past a non-compliant sign in the field and one posted on a business door on Park Avenue?


    ...And NO, you do not have a Constitution Right to carry on property that does not belong to you if you have been informed not to. Get over it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2016
  9. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,399
    113
    well said and put Mr. Mseric. I agree with you 100%, but those who feel they aren't trespassing unless they are seen carrying and asked to leave, feel that's an infringement upon their right to carry and to defend themselves.

    they think we are advocating GFZ's and promoting business's that post such signs. I totally disagree with them personally, but I feel they have the right to set rules or policies that as property owner as their right to do so, and I respect their rights. I simply don't take my business to them. I avoid any GFZ's like the plague. but even disagreeing with their opinions or policies, I still feel they deserve to be respected.

    and I see that as huge problem that some here feel they don't have to respect the rights or wishes of others. in my opinion, it sets a bad example for all law abiding gun owners, and makes us look like criminals in the viewpoint of anti-gun liberals. and even disregarding a "No Guns Allowed" sign in my opinion is breaking the law.
     
  10. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Hence the reason some States Like Texas feel the need to give "signs" the "Force of Law" as legislators are painfully aware that the citizens themselves cannot and will not show respect and Police Themselves without there being a Legal Penalty Attached.

    Sad, I know, but that is what this country has become, me first, f-u and Sue me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2016
  11. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,008
    2,444
    113
    State law will come into play here.

    If the property owner can't be bothered to put up a LEGAL sign, then why should someone be bothered to follow a "suggestion".

    You enter a city and the sign says, no speeding. You're doing 35 mph, and they write a ticket for 10 over... should you be found guilty?

    Fine points of law must be finely defined. this gets back to the whole point of our laws are not to tell us what is permitted, but tell us what is not permitted. There's a distinct difference that it took awhile for a constitutional law professor friend that had to beat into my thick skull.
     
  12. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,008
    2,444
    113
    I went into a store Monday, they had an 8-1/2x11 piece of paper filled with 12 point type, with about 10 icons across the top of the paper. I looked at it after I left... cigarette with a line through it. Dog on a leash with a line through it... are cats legal? A drinking glass... but no line through it. Some symbols I have no idea what they meant. I didn't bother reading the text, SWMBO wanted to go, she was getting cold ;) But none of the icons was a gun, so who knows what their policy was.
     
  13. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    In my example, the owner did put up the "compliant" signs, 25+ years ago, when he was young and fit.

    The State change the Legal requirements for what constitutes Compliant a few years ago. Now that he is old, grey and crippled, he don't get out much no more and he can't get out and post the New Compliant Signs. Tain't gots no money to pay nobody neither.

    Perfect time for you to grab your buddies and your rifles,head over to his spread and getcha ya some a dat non-compliant hunting in before the old coot musters up enough energy to post them thar New fangled signs.

    But hey, if'en he can't be bothered, more good times for you, ay.
     
  14. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,008
    2,444
    113
    That's the fun side (not) of the legal business. Exactness counts, inexactness does not. Doesn't matter if you're doing commercial legal contracts, mortgages, local municipal laws, or trespassing signs.

    We had a local police dept that tested their DUI equipment exactly according to the standard... however, they never tested the test equipment as required. One very enterprising lawyer figured it out, and a whole bunch of drunk drivers got a free pass. Someone I knew was one of those... He claims, and take it for what it's worth, he claimed he had ONE beer and blew (IRC) .12. Did he tell me a fib, I don't know. But the depts test equipment also was proven to be inaccurate. Again, exactness counts, as it should.
     
  15. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    Yup, don't matter a hoot what a sign says if'en it ain't legal, don't pay it no never mind to it.

    Sign says, "no cigarette buts in the urinal" and their ain't no law agin it, toss them buggers in thar.

    Sign says, "no spitting on the floor", and there ain't no "Force of Law" attached, spit away.

    Sign says "No name calling or foul language" on this forum, but thar tain't no law agin it, call away and swear away.

    After all this is American and we have Rights, so we can do whatever the hell we want in a public place on private property.

    Unless there is FOL of course, then we gots to behave.
     
  16. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    4
    0
    In Ohio it is against the law to hunt another's property without written permission from the owner. He doesn't need a sign, it's the law. These laws are in the booklet that you get when purchasing your hunting license.

    I for one never claimed a constitutional right to carry on private property I just said I do it anyway and it isn't a criminal offense here. That isn't a matter for debate it's just a fact. If anyone doesn't like it tough sh#t. I'd be willing to bet everyone of you guys claiming to obey all signs have had a speeding ticket. :D
     
  17. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,359
    6,198
    113
    Double check your "Facts" Rjd.

    (3)

    (a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass under section 2911.21 of the Revised Code or under any other criminal law of this state or criminal law, ordinance, or resolution of a political subdivision of this state, and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.

    (b)

    Enjoy your arrest for Trespassing when you finally get caught for it. A business open to the public, even during operational hours, is still private property.

    Source: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126
     
  18. mseric

    mseric Active Member

    4,167
    2
    38
    You can find the appropriate State Statute posted by Fox above, or you can go here and read the short version.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

    , a
    person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation
    of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth
    degree


    Either way, you are incorrect and carrying past a No-Guns sign is "Criminal Trespass" in the State of Ohio.
     
  19. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    21,978
    13,273
    113
    Way out here in the "wild west" the laws are much the same.

    You need written permission to hunt or fish on private land. Period.

    If land is "posted" as NO TRESPASSING, you are in criminal violation if you are on that land without permission. The landowner has no obligation to ask you to leave before calling the sheriff.

    "No Guns" is something very rare here, but still carries the force of law, just like No Trespassing.

    I do not agree with this childish, "in your face" attitude of disregarding the wishes of the private property owner.

    Most people don't care about the 2A in the first place. They're neither friends nor enemies of our cause. Pissing them off with childish behavior doesn't help out cause at all.

    Just because I think I have a "right" to do something doesn't necessarily make doing it a "wise" decision..
     
  20. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,008
    2,444
    113
    Never once did I suggest those red herrings :)

    In fact, if you read this thread careful, I said even police officers should honor the wishes of Panera Bread's wishes of no guns... that started the firestorm on me allegedly hating LEO...

    What I said was, if the owner wants to be compliant with the law, he must meet the exactness of the law, but thanks for the deviating distraction